December 7, 2016
The
Management Commission met at 5:30 p.m. in the House of Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
I call
this session of the Management Commission to order.
I would
like to welcome as guests and, for the purpose of asking questions, should
Members need to ask questions, Ms. Sandra Burke, Chair of the Members'
Compensation Review Committee and Ms. Maureen McCarthy, Director of Pensions
Administration, Department of Finance.
The House of Assembly
Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act
require that the substance
of any decision made at an in-camera meeting be reported at the next public
meeting of the Commission. We did make two decisions at the in-camera meeting
before the televised portion of this meeting.
Prior
to getting into those, I did neglect to – starting with Mr. Hutching, I'll do
introductions.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Keith Hutchings, MHA,
District of Ferryland.
MS. MICHAEL:
Lorraine Michael, MHA, St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Lisa Dempster, Deputy
Speaker.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Andrew Parsons, MHA, Burgeo
– La Poile.
MS. COADY:
Siobhan Coady, MHA, St.
John's West.
MR. BROWNE:
Mark Browne, MHA, Placentia
West – Bellevue.
MS. KEEFE:
Marie Keefe, Clerk's Office.
CLERK (Ms. Barnes):
Sandra Barnes, Clerk.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tom Osborne, Chair of the
Management Commission.
The
Commission at an in-camera meeting recommended to the Lieutenant Governor in
Council that the new Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Legislative
Standards be compensated at EPO6, step one, with regular step increases to
apply. Also, in order to give immediate effect to this decision, the Commission
waived the usual two-day waiting period for the Management Commission decisions.
Further, the Commission at the in-camera meeting recommended to the Lieutenant
Governor in Council that the new Child and Youth Advocate be compensated at
EP10, step 21, with regular step increases to apply. In order to give immediate
effect to this decision, the Commission waived the usual two-day waiting period
for Management Commission decisions.
Moving
on to the agenda items for this particular meeting, Tab 1 is the approval of
minutes for November 23. There is a decision required and the proposed motion is
that the Commission approve the minutes of the November 23, 2016 meetings.
Moved
by Mr. Parsons; seconded by Mr. Browne.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Tab 2 –
there are 10 items under Tab 8 in your booklets. They are MCRC recommendations.
On October 28 the MCRC presented its report with 59 recommendations. While all
recommendations will be brought to the Commission, they cannot be dealt with in
one meeting. In deciding which recommendations would be added to today's agenda,
we considered those with budgetary and legislative impacts, as well as those
that have time frames attached to their implementation.
So we
have Recommendations 39 to 43 which affect MHA pensions. Recommendation 39,
“There shall be no portability option to the Member of the House of Assembly
Pension Plan. An amendment shall be necessary to the Portability of Pensions
Act; 40. Eligibility for an MHA to receive a pension shall be at 60 years of
age, and there shall be no option to select an early retirement option; 41. The
MHAPP shall have no indexing component; 42. The current MHAPP vesting component
and survivor's benefit remain unchanged; and 43. The Defined Benefit Plan as
outlined in the Morneau Shepell attached as Appendix H (Option 2) shall apply to
Members of the House of Assembly who were first elected on or after November 30,
2015.”
Recommendation 39 is the first one we will deal with. That one, again, the
proposed motion is that the Commission accepts Recommendation 39 and directs
that there shall be portability option to the Member of the House of Assembly
Pension Plan. An amendment will be necessary to the
Portability of Pensions Act.
Do we
have any comments or questions?
Do we
have a mover for that motion?
Moved
by Mr. Parsons; seconded by Mr. Hutchings.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion
two is that the Commission accepts Recommendation 40 and directs that
eligibility for an MHA to receive a pension shall be at 60 years of age, and
there shall be no option to select an early retirement option.
Are
there any comments or questions?
Do we
have a mover for that motion?
Moved
by Mr. Parsons; seconded by Mr. Hutchings.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion
three, the Commission accepts Recommendation 41 and directs that the MHA Pension
Plan shall have no indexing component.
Are
there any comments or questions?
Mover?
Moved
by Ms. Michael; seconded by Mr. Parsons.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion
four that the Commission accepts Recommendation 42 and directs the current MHA
Pension Plan vesting component and survivor's benefit to remain unchanged.
Do we
have any questions or comments?
Do we
have a mover?
Moved
by Mr. Parsons; seconded by Ms. Michael.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion
five, that the Commission accepts Recommendation 43 and directs that the Defined
Benefit Plan, as outlined in the Morneau Shepell Report attached as Appendix H,
Option 2, shall apply to Members of the House of Assembly who are first elected
on or after November 30, 2015.
Any
comments or concerns?
Ms.
Coady.
MS. COADY:
(Inaudible) conflict – not a
conflict of interest, because it would apply to me, so I want to recuse myself.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, and Mr. Browne, you
raised your hand.
MR. BROWNE:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, similar to
Ms. Coady. Obviously, this would impact me, so I will not vote on this measure
either.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I don't have any conflict,
and I want to speak to this one because my opinion differs from the motion
that's presented. I say that knowing that this has no effect on me in any way,
shape or form.
I think
there are a number of Members in this House, who, when they signed up to run in
the last general election, they knew what they were getting into in the sense
that they could make employment plans, make financial plans. I know a number –
as many should do if you're taking any new position or trying to get a new
position, you need to check out how it's going to affect you financially and
personally, and there were rules in place at that time.
Again,
they ran with that expectation of knowing what they were getting into. I know
some actually went and got advice saying this is what you should do, and that's
how they made their decision. We're about a year in now and that's what they've
been dealing with.
So I
have no issue with the plan being changed going forward, not a problem. But I
think it's unfair for these Members, who signed up for one thing to have it
changed mid-stream. They have been paying into it, dealing with it. That's why,
personally, I think the motion should be changed to the recommendation is
accepted from December 7, 2016 onwards.
I
understand how it works with that acceptance and modification, but I also
believe that the modification in this case doesn't affect pensions and
severance, it affects the going forward. I think that can be accomplished here.
I think that is not an issue. Now, that being said, you could technically reject
it. I agree with this process, that's why we've gone through this, we've sat
through a number of meetings and discussed this and looked at this. I respect
the process and how it applies. I do feel that in this case the motion should be
changed because it would be be unfair, I think, in any employment situation to
have this.
So
that's my say on that. I don't know if other Members have any say, but that's
just how I – I mean in fact, if this were done in certain workplaces, it could
be deemed constructive dismissal or grounds. So I put that out there. That's my
submission.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other comments?
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I think I'll ask, Mr.
Parsons, just to repeat your very last phrase. I didn't get it.
If this
had been –
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
If this had been a different
employment context, to change the terms of pension during, that it could be
deemed a ground for constructive dismissal.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Mr.
Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yeah, Mr. Speaker, reviewing
the context of this particular recommendation, I do as well share some of the
concerns expressed by my colleague. Again, I point out this is not relevant to
me this particular recommendation, but when you think about the employment
contract and individuals that put themselves forward, were elected, and for the
last year has basically paid into a pension plan, the retroactivity concerns me.
They
came into a position. They were elected. The benefit plan and pension was in
place. They've paid into it, as my colleague has said, for the year and now
we're going to go retroactive. To me, it doesn't seem fair.
If
we're talking about any employment environment and you walked in, were
interviewed and were hired for a position, I would think – I'm not a lawyer but
at the point in time when you accepted that position, what was in place for you
was in place for you. If it was changed in some subsequent time, I guess it
would be at that point in time in the future when it was changed and would take
effect as of that time.
So I do
have concerns with this. I just wanted to make you aware of them.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
In
light of this, does somebody – Ms. Burke.
MS. BURKE:
Thank you.
I, too,
am concerned about this issue. I wanted to address the Management Commission to
elaborate on this particular issue.
The
2016 MCRC put forward, as is recorded in the report, a comprehensive
remuneration package knowing that some aspects of MHA remuneration were less
generous than others. The remuneration package that has been recommended is on
par with the rest of what is offered across Canada for MLAs and MHAs.
While
pension is an important part of remuneration, it is not more or less important
than any other aspect of MHA remuneration and that includes salary and
severance. The changes that are recommended to the MHA Pension Plan are
significant, but they were done with the salary and severance benefits in mind,
and based on the fact that the MHA Pension Plan is financially unstable and
unstainable in its current form.
The
2016 MCRC decided not to grandfather the current newly elected MHAs, in relation
to severance and pension, for a number of reasons. I want to go through them and
explain them.
First
of all, the Green report does not direct that future MCRCs were or are bound by
his grandfathering recommendation, save and except for the 2009 MCRC which was
to review a new pension proposal that was supposed to have been brought to its
attention by the Management Commission of the day. That did not happen.
Next,
we were guided in making our decision by the fact that the provincial deficit
was placed at $1.83 billion as was announced in April 2016. Next, in the past 10
years since the Green report, there have been many comments made by political
leaders that MHA pension reform must occur. Media coverage at the time of the
2012 MCRC report was received and included the quote from then Opposition
leader, Dwight Ball, who is our current Premier.
Dwight
Ball was quoted as saying: “The days of the gold-plated pension plans should be
done … We have to deal with pensions and we need to get our pension plans in
line with what you would expect in the private sector, or even in line with
what's available in the public sector right now. There have been changes made to
the pension plan for MHAs in recent years, but it's still nowhere near in line
with what other public servants or average people tend to get.” That was a quote
from The Telegram on December 5,
2012.
During
the Management Commission meeting on December 2013, Mr. Ball expressed concern
that if changes to the pension plan were left too long, the implementation of
those changes would not occur until 2020. He found that delay to be
unacceptable.
One
year later, on September 3, 2014, The
Telegram reported then Premier Marshall as saying: With sweeping changes to
the provincial pension plans, the MHA Pension Plan is on the agenda for reform.
He further stated that the pension reform deal, in the public sector at that
time, targeted a sustainable future for the plans. He committed to sending the
issue of the MHA Pension Plan to the Management Commission. That did not happen.
In
2012, Judge Jacqueline Brazil was appointed to the 2012 MCRC. Upon her
consideration of the MHA Pension Plan she concluded that the changes made by the
2009 MCRC were not of a significant nature so as to conform to Recommendation
78(1) of the Green report. The details of her reasoning are found at page 20 of
that report.
The
2016 MCRC undertook an extensive review of the pension plans across Canada and
the public sector pension plans. We also bore in mind Judge Brazil's comments
that the defined benefit plan was to be eliminated and a new defined
contribution plan recommended or that the current MHA defined pension plan was
to be significantly modified. She was, in effect, echoing the recommendation
made in the Green report from 2007.
During
the review by the 2016 MCRC it was noted that between March 2006 and December
31, 2015, there was an increase in the unfunded liability of the MHA Pension
Plan in the amount of $27.4 million. If the newly elected Members in the 48th
General Assembly were grandfathered in to the existing MHA Pension Plan, it
would add an additional financial burden of $3.6 million to the plan's unfunded
liability, all of which of course is borne by the people of this province.
The
growing financial burden on the people in communities in this province must end
somewhere. The continued growth of the unfunded liability is irresponsible and
it's unsustainable. It's concerning that the people of this province are under
significant financial strain. We felt that no further additional financial
burdens to the MHA Pension Plan should be incurred by the people of this
province effective this General Assembly.
Finally
and additionally, as alluded to by Minister Parsons, section 16(5) of the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act states that all MCRC recommendations
requiring legislative approval be presented to the minister for preparation of a
bill. This would include the recommendations regarding the MHA Pension Plan.
As
subsection 16(6) does not refer to pensions, it may appear that it does not
restrict the Management Commission's ability to modify the 2016 MCRC pension
recommendations so as to create a greater benefit for its current MHAs. I urge
the Management Commission to be careful in its reliance on the strict
interpretation of this section of the act and not to make decisions solely based
on what we would consider to be a perceived technicality, because we recognized
it and we have made recommendations for the amendment of that act.
We
would ask that the Management Commission look to the spirit of the act and focus
on the framework of accountability, integrity and transparency in all aspects of
MHA remuneration.
With
respect to the Member's comments that a number of Members were coming into the
MHA position knowing what the remuneration was, I would direct those Members to
the 2016 MCRC report. The fact of the matter is we met with 21 of 40 MHAs. Of
the 21 who met with us, only one of the MHAs indicated that remuneration was a
consideration of why they became a Member. None of the other 20 Members that we
met with said they gave any consideration to remuneration.
In
terms of the assertion that this could be grounds for constructive dismissal in
a different employment contract; again, that is not the issue before us. The
issue before us is that MHAs would, should be, if they aren't aware, that MCRCs
are appointed within a very short time after the new General Assembly is in
session. The purpose of the MCRC is to review all aspects of remuneration. That
includes pension, salary, severance and allowances, and each Member should be
aware that there may very well be changes, retroactively or not, with respect to
these remuneration issues.
So
those would be my comments and as further explanation of what the pension
recommendation is in the report.
MR. SPEAKER:
Are there any other comments
or questions?
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Just a question of Ms.
Burke. I know I've read the report but I don't have it in front of me.
Could
you tell us, with the people who did present themselves to – non-MHAs – the
MCRC, did pension come up and what was what you gleaned from that –
MS BURKE:
(Inaudible.)
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MS. BURKE:
The issue of remuneration was discussed and nobody mentioned the issue of
pensions or salaries or severance.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I'm not talking about MHAs.
I'm talking about other than MHAs, the other people who presented to the MCRC,
the general public. Did any of the general public bring up pensions, and if they
did, what did they say?
MS. BURKE:
Most of the members of the
public that we spoke to, there was very little – I can say that, there was very
little public input. We had a small showing in Clarenville. We had a bigger
showing of 20 people or so in St. John's. There were a number of people, maybe
half a dozen on Twitter and then we had some telephone conversations with – I
had some telephone conversations with those who called in. All of them indicated
that the pension plan was a gold plated pension plan.
There
were not many people who understood the intricacies of pensions. They weren't
able to talk about pensions in any great detail, but they all felt that the
pension plan was too rich.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other comments from the
Members of the Management Commission?
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I will make a few comments
to the comments by the Chair. Again, I appreciate the work done by this
committee, which is why we've taken the time to be here to review it, to go
through it, to digest it and discuss. I certainly take my responsibility here
very seriously.
There
are a number of things here when we talk about sustainability of the plan.
That's something that obviously didn't just happen. It would take time to deal
with that and what we're suggesting here. I can't speak for former Management
Commissions. It's the first time I've ever dealt with this. I don't know why it
is what it is, but we're here.
Right
now, this particular provision affects, I think, roughly 20 people. There will
be hundreds of MHAs after that the change will affect going forward. We can get
into a legal interpretation but the legislation explicitly chose not to include
reference to pensions or severance in the statutory bar against modifications in
16(6). It explicitly chose to do so in section 16(1).
So to
me, we can get into how you interpret or get into spirit or we can do the
reading of the legislation. I think what's suggested here, and I don't want to
get into the comments about what former Premier Marshall may or may not have
said. I appreciate the comments. I understand, and this has no effect on me
personally but it is something that does have an effect on 20 people who I think
made a decision – and I think going forward we are recommending changes here
that will have a positive effect going forward.
I would
conclude with that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other comments by
Members of the Management Commission?
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, my apologies –
MR. SPEAKER:
For those of you who are
viewing, Mr. Davis has joined us. I think he had prior commitments.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I did, Sir.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize to you, the Commission, staff and guests here
this evening for being late. I had hoped to be here by the start of the meeting,
but I do apologize and I understand you're discussing – I have to get the right
Tab here.
MR. SPEAKER:
Motion five, Recommendation
43.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, if I could just have a
moment, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
I think it's under Tab 10,
Mr. Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay. Mine might be Tab 2,
but different.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tab 2, sorry.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Now I know why; I was still
using the old one.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So we're discussing right
now under 43, which is the Defined Benefit Plan applying to Members of the House
who were first elected on or after November 30.
I
apologize if I'm duplicating or repeating some of the discussions that may have
taken place but, after a briefing, I did a little bit of review on what had
previously taken place respective of Justice Green's recommendation commentary
on some steps being taken on pensions.
The
2007 MCRC, which actually produced its report in October 2009, and what I read
and understood was – and I make these references because of previous discussions
that we have made here or in other conversations. But the 2007 was actually
reported on October 2009 and the Committee wasn't appointed until 2009. Because
2007 was right after Justice Green's changes to the House of Assembly and there
were some commentaries on the benefits of – or in saying that two years had
passed in reference to only two years had passed from 2007 to 2009 and when the
MCRC issued its report.
And, in
fact, the comments were that delay allowed for Justice Green's changes to be
effective for a period and allowed some experience to have occurred with the
changes as a result of Justice Green's report recommendations. Also, not only
for Members of the House of Assembly but also members of the public and staff
and others to have input based on experience of only two years.
At that
point in time, on the effectiveness of the salaries – because of course the
effective date of the salaries was not what, I don't think, especially Members
of the House, had expected. But at that point in time the MCRC had made changes
to pension benefits to become effective post the report – the MCRC report
– and I think you know that, and to be effective January 1, 2010.
Actually, I was the first MHA under the new pension plan at
that point in time. Concern now, of course, that I've received from Members,
particularly newer Members, but other Members besides who are not impacted by
this decision have expressed a view, and I bring those to the Management
Commission, is the premise of being elected on an expectation of some level of
compensation and benefits, knowing that an MCRC was going to happen and the
chair who's here with us could certainly make her own comments, and I don't
intend to put words in her mouth, but my understanding from commentary and
discussion with her was that they should have expected it.
I don't disagree with that, but having an expectation
looking at the precedents of the 2007 MCRC which filed in 2009 was that the
changes to benefits would happen for people elected after that point. Now, I sit
here not having heard comments from other Members, so I apologize for any
duplication, which there probably is some, I apologize for that.
One of the points I wanted to make today, significant
points, was that I agree that before you run for office that you give some
consideration to what it is you're running for, what the compensation and
benefits would be. I think in past precedents of the previous MCRC that would
establish that the pension and benefits may change – or the pension in
particular would change, but only for Members of the House that were voted after
the implementation of the report.
That's the main submission I wanted to make today.
MR. SPEAKER:
Ms. Burke.
MS. BURKE:
Justice Green, a close reading of his report indicates that he was concerned
with the delays that the former
body of the Management Commission was making with respect to pensions. He
clearly identified there was a delay in implementing the contribution rates and
accrual rates in 1998. He clearly identified there were delays with respect to
the accommodation for tax issues in 2005.
In
2007, in Recommendation 78(1) and (3), he clearly indicated the Management
Commission should proceed to develop a proposed new pension structure for MHAs
to either eliminate the existing defined pension benefit plan and implementing a
defined contribution plan, RRSP type of arrangement, that takes into account the
cost and levels of benefits relative to other public service plans, or
significantly modifying the terms of the existing defined pension plan to make
it conform more closely in terms of levels of benefits with other public service
plans. That was his recommendation in 2007.
The
2009 MCRC report clearly indicates that no new pension plan structure was
provided to that MCRC. At that time, Recommendation 78(1) was not implemented.
The
2009 MCRC went on to make changes to the pension plan. I want to stop here to
address something that Mr. Davis had earlier said. He felt there was a precedent
set that the changes to benefits were for MHAs who are elected after that date.
However, in 2009, that MCRC implemented an 8 per cent salary rollback that year
and it was retroactive. So there is no particular precedent set with respect to
these benefits.
In
2012, Judge Brazil found that the changes that were made by the 2009 MCRC were
not significant so as to conform to Judge Green's Recommendation 78(1). She
directed the Management Commission to develop a proposed new pension structure
following the recommendations of the Green report, and the Management Commission
of the day accepted that recommendation.
There
was no new pension structure proposed by the Management Commission and provided
to the 2016 MCRC.
The
MCRC in 2016 undertook a significant review and reform of the MHA Pension Plan,
almost 10 years after the time that the pension plan was to have been
significantly dealt with or modified. It appears that we are further – and maybe
the vote will come out differently, but it would appear that this Commission is
going to delay the implementation of the recommendations to the next General
Assembly or to the next by-election for new Members that are coming onboard.
It
would seem to me that this harkens back to Justice Green's comments that the
delays that are being put in place with respect to the pension implementation
are continuing even today. He found in 1998 and 2005 there are continuing delays
in terms of how pension is being dealt with. It seems as though we're doing the
same thing now.
The
history on this is quite clear. Pension reform should have been done a long time
ago. The current newly elected MHAs if pension reform was done when it should
have been done, then the current pension plan – they would be already subject to
the new pension plan and the reformed pension plan.
Those
are my comments.
MR. SPEAKER:
I thank you. I will make one
clarification on the 8 per cent rollback that you had mentioned. The 8 per cent
rollback was implemented or suggested by the MCRC in 2008 and it was
implemented. It was retroactive but the increase happened post-election not
pre-election. The rollback occurred but it rolled it back to what wages were as
of the election date. It didn't roll them back greater than what they were at
the time Members were elected in the 2007 general election.
So
there is a bit of difference. I'm just pointing out there's a bit of difference,
I think, in what happened in 2008. I don't think we can say there's precedence
based on that because this is changing benefits that Members were elected to in
the most recent general election.
Ms.
Burke.
MS. BURKE:
When Members were elected at that time, they were aware that wages were tied to
the Public Service Sector increases. So there was an anticipation. That was
their understanding; that was going to happen. In fact, they had actually gotten
the increased wages and there was money then taken away from them. So I'm not
sure that there is a significant difference there.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other comments or
questions by Members of the Management Commission?
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just
one question for Ms. Burke: Have you considered what changes to current pension
legislation – I know there are many different pieces of pension legislation. I
don't know, maybe if the minister could comment on it, but if you have knowledge
of what changes to current legislation would have to exist in order to allow for
retroactivity of a pension plan, because I know there are rules and legislation
around – very strict rules about the administration of pensions.
I
anticipate from the bit of reading I've done on it that there would have to be
changes to the act to allow for retroactivity to take place. I'm just wondering
if Ms. Burke had considered that or what her findings were on it.
MS. BURKE:
I'll defer that to Ms. McCarthy.
MS. MCCARTHY:
I assume we're referring to the Pension
Benefits Act which regulates pension plans in the province. There are some
aspects of this act that are subject to the PBA. I guess you're talking about
the retroactive reduction in benefits but I mean this is not too dissimilar from
what was done for the public sector plans.
Now
they've since become exempt from the
Pension Benefits Act but that's an issue I would have to defer to the
superintendent of pensions to actually see if this is a reduction in that,
because none of the Members are vested. There's no entitlement yet; none of
these new Members. So that's something to defer to the superintendent.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other comments or
questions?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, again, my
review of some of this led me to believe that there'd probably have to be some
changes made. The question about portability would probably require a change in
the Portability of Pensions Act as
well. I'm wondering if it would be an important factor for us to consider as
well in our decision. I know from my own experience as well that rules on
pensions are very strict and on elections of pensions. We make choices and
decisions about pensions and wondering what complications may arise as a result
of that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further comments, further
questions?
Are
Members ready for the motion?
Based
on comments put forward, are we ready for the motion as proposed?
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I would move that the motion
read – and I might get the wording wrong: The Commission accepts Recommendation
43 that the Defined Benefit Plan as outlined in Appendix H of the Morneau
Shepell Report (Option 2) shall apply to Members of the House of Assembly who
were first elected on or after December 7, 2016.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Is
there a mover for that proposed motion? Mr. Parsons.
A
seconder? Mr. Hutchings.
We have
a mover and a seconder.
All
those in favour of the new motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
I declare the motion
carried.
Item 2,
Recommendations 31-38 of the MHA Severance: “31. A Member must serve 3 years to
be eligible to receive severance;
“32.
Severance shall be calculated as follows: a. If the Member's service ends at the
conclusion of his/her 1st General Assembly, 20% of the Member's salary is
payable as severance; b. If the Member's service ends at the conclusion of
his/her 2nd General Assembly, 50% of the Member's salary is payable as
severance; c. If the Member's service ends at the conclusion of his/her 3rd
General Assembly or thereafter, a maximum of 75% of the Member's salary is
payable as severance.
“Provided that, if a Member's service ends prior to the end of an Assembly, the
severance will be pro-rated for the years of service.
“33.
Severance shall be paid monthly during the transition period;
“34. A
Member who is or becomes disqualified from being a Member pursuant to Part V of
the Act (other than the failure to be re-elected or the resignation of his/her
seat) is not eligible to receive severance;
“35. No
additional severance shall be paid to an MHA who has vacated or otherwise
terminated his/her Legislative Office for any reason whatsoever;
“36.
Severance benefits paid to an MHA from any other government source including,
but not limited to, severance benefits available to Members through
Executive Council (e.g. the receipt by a Minister of payment upon leaving a
Ministerial office and an extended car allowance) shall be deducted from the
severance payable to an MHA from the HOA, so that the overall severance payable
to the MHA from all sources does not exceed severance payable to a Member
pursuant to Severance Recommendation 32;
“37. Severance benefits shall cease in the event that a
Member: a. is eligible to receive a pension sponsored by the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador during the transition period; b. obtains fulltime
employment with the public sector; c. is appointed a provincial or federal
judge; d. is appointed to the Senate of Canada; e. is elected as a Member of the
House of Commons; f. is appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland and
Labrador; g. is appointed Governor General of Canada;
“38. If a Member becomes a Member again, following a break
in service, prior service for which severance has already been paid is not to be
counted towards years of service for future severance pay, and the Member shall
be considered as commencing his/her first General Assembly, regardless of how
many Assemblies he/she may have served previously.”
Are there any comments or questions prior to moving to the
motions?
Motion one, the Commission accepts Recommendation 31 –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, my apologies.
I know (inaudible) a bit delayed.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My recollection of the briefing we had, we had a discussion
about effectiveness, who this applies to or an effective date. I don't see it in
the motion. I just ask for clarification from Ms. Burke.
MR. SPEAKER:
Members elected prior to November 30 are grandfathered.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Is that in the motion?
MR. SPEAKER:
No, that's in another recommendation.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, it is. Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Motion one, the Commission accepts Recommendation 31 and directs that a Member
must serve three years to be eligible to receive severance.
Do we have a mover and/or a seconder?
Moved by Mr. Parsons; seconded by Ms. Michael.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion two, if the Commission accepts the recommendation
the following is proposed: the Commission accepts Recommendation 32 and directs
that severance shall be calculated as follows: “If the Member's service ends at
the conclusion of his/her 1st General Assembly, 20% of the Member's salary is
payable as severance; b. If the Member's service ends at the conclusion of
his/her 2nd General Assembly, 50% of the Member's salary is payable as
severance; c. If the Member's service ends at the conclusion of his/her 3rd
General Assembly or thereafter, a maximum of 75% of the Member's salary is
payable as severance. Provided that, if a Member's service ends prior to the end
of an Assembly, the severance will be pro-rated for the years of service.”
Do we
have a mover and/or seconder?
Moved
by Lorraine Michael; seconded by Mr. Hutchings.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion
number three, the Commission accepts Recommendation 33 and directs that,
“Severance shall be paid monthly during the transition period.”
Do we
have a mover and/or seconder or any comments or questions?
Moved
by Mr. Parsons; seconded by Ms. Michael.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion
number four is that the Commission accepts Recommendation 34 and directs that,
“A Member who is or becomes disqualified from being a Member pursuant to Part V
of the Act (other than the failure to be re-elected or the resignation of
his/her seat) is not eligible to receive severance.”
Do we
have a mover and/or seconder?
Moved
by Ms. Michael; seconded by Mr. Parsons.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion
number five, the Commission accepts Recommendation 35 and directs that, “No
additional severance shall be paid to an MHA who has vacated or otherwise
terminated his/her Legislative Office for any reason whatsoever.”
Do we
have a mover and/or seconder?
Mr.
Parsons; Ms. Michael.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion
number six, the Commission accepts Recommendation 36 and directs that,
“Severance benefits paid to an MHA from any other government source including,
but not limited to, severance benefits available to Members through Executive
Council (e.g. the receipt by a Minister of payment upon leaving a Ministerial
office and an extended car allowance) shall be deducted from the severance
payable to an MHA from the HOA, so that the overall severance payable to the MHA
from all sources does not exceed severance payable to a Member pursuant to
Severance Recommendation 32.”
Do we
have a mover or seconder?
Ms.
Michael moved; seconded by Mr. Hutchings.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion
number seven, the Commission accepts Recommendation 37 and directs that,
“Severance benefits shall cease in the event that a Member: a. is eligible to
receive a pension sponsored by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
during the transition period; b. obtains fulltime employment with the public
sector; c. is appointed a provincial or federal judge; d. is appointed to the
Senate of Canada; e. is elected as a Member of the House of Commons; f. is
appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador; g. is appointed
Governor General of Canada.”
Do we
have a mover and/or seconder?
Moved
by Mr. Parsons; seconded by Ms. Michael.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
Motion
number eight: “The Commission accepts recommendation 38 that if a Member becomes
a Member again, following a break in service, prior service for which severance
has already been paid is not to be counted towards years of service for future
severance pay, and the Member shall be considered as commencing his/her first
General Assembly, regardless of how many Assemblies he/she may have served
previously.”
Do we
have a mover and/or seconder?
Moved
by Ms. Michael; seconded by Mr. Hutchings.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
Recommendation 44 (Grandfathering Provision); the recommendation is that: “The
Severance and Pension Recommendations shall not apply to Members of the House of
Assembly who were elected before November 30, 2015.”
Based
on a previous vote of the Committee, I think those two should be separated. The
proposed recommendation is: “The Commission accepts recommendation 44 that the
severance and pension recommendations shall not apply to Members of the House of
Assembly who were elected before November 30, 2015.”
So I
think the motion, if I may, should be that the Commission accepts Recommendation
44 and directs that severance recommendations shall not apply to Members of the
House of Assembly who were elected before November 30, 2015, and we'll do a
separate motion on pensions. Do Members follow what I'm suggesting?
Okay.
We've made a change to one of the recommendations regarding pension. The change
was that effective December 7, 2016, the pension would change.
Based
on that, I am recommending two separate recommendations. So one recommendation
would be the Commission accepts Recommendation 44 and directs that severance
recommendations shall not apply to Members of the House of Assembly who were
elected before November 30, 2015.
Do I
have a mover and/or seconder for that recommendation?
Moved
by Ms. Michael.
Do I
have a seconder?
Seconded by Mr. Hutchings.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
Based
on the change in date for pension, it would be the same recommendation but the
date would be December 7, 2016: The Commission accepts recommendation 44 and
directs that pension recommendations shall not apply to Members of the House of
Assembly who were elected before December 7, 2016.
Do I
have a mover and/or a seconder?
Moved
by Mr. Parsons.
Do I
have a seconder?
Mr.
Hutchings.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
Recommendation 21 – annual lump sum for temporary accommodations in the capital
region. Recommendation 21 is: “A Member may opt to receive a lump sum for
his/her accommodations rather than avail of the Secondary Accommodation, Private
Accommodation or Temporary Accommodation: a. such lump sum shall be a taxable
benefit to the Member; b. shall apply to the Capital Region only, for the entire
fiscal year, whether the House in Session or the House not in Session; c. the
Member must elect this option no later than 30 days before the commencement of
the fiscal year. If he/she does not so elect, the Member will not be permitted
this option and shall have to choose from the Secondary Accommodation, Private
Residence or Temporary Accommodation options; d. The lump sum will be calculated
….”
Marie,
you were going to update that. Do you have a copy of that?
MS. KEEFE:
It's on 16.
MR. SPEAKER:
Oh, it's on 16. Sorry – the
lump sum shall be calculated as follows.
As
discussed, the wording in the motion in the briefing note needs to be changed.
So the number of sitting days in the parliamentary calendar or the average
number of sitting days the House is in session calculated over the previous
eight-year period, multiplied by the temporary accommodation rate at the RFP
price. The Member may not seek other accommodation expenses or reimbursements
for the remainder of the fiscal year, and if the Member leaves office prior to
the end of the fiscal year, the Member must repay the lump sum on a pro rata
basis.
Do we
have any comments or questions on this recommendation?
Do I
have a mover and/or a seconder?
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There
were some discussions at our last meeting and the minister had –
MR. SPEAKER:
Based on the parliamentary
calendar?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes – well, no. There were
some concerns that were expressed by the minister on –
MR. SPEAKER:
I can address those, I
think.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Can you? Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Commission considered
the recommendation November 30 and queried whether the number of sitting days in
each year, as provided in the recently approved parliamentary calendar, could be
used for the calculation of the lump sum instead of the average number of days
outlined in the recommendation. The Chair of the MCRC was in attendance and
agrees that if a parliamentary calendar is in force, it can be used in the lump
sum calculation.
“While
the revised Standing Orders provide for a certain number of sitting days in each
year, that number could still fluctuate depending on issues related to the
legislative agenda that may require further sitting days. The Commission further
considered whether there could be an adjustment to the lump sum after the fact
to accommodate the actual number of days the House sat in that year.
“MCRC confirms that the original intent of this
recommendation was to provide Members flexibility with respect to accommodation
options in the Capital Region. The lump sum (a taxable benefit) could be chosen
by a Member at the beginning of a fiscal year, and put toward costs of either
private or temporary accommodations for the entire year (for both House in
Session and House not in Session). It cannot be chosen if the Member maintains a
secondary residence in the Capital Region.
“The calculation mechanism was recommended as a means of
determining a reasonable amount for the lump sum. It was not intended to capture
the actual number of days the House sat in that year.
“Should a Member wish to seek reimbursement for the actual
number of days the House sits, he/she would have the option of claiming one of
the following existing alternatives for accommodations in the Capital Region:”
either secondary residence, declared by affidavit; private accommodations or
temporary accommodations.
The new
motion, as I put forward, does capture the calendar day. The calculation would
be the number of sitting days in a parliamentary calendar or the average number
of sitting days that the House is in session, calculated over the previous
eight-year period.
MS. MICHAEL:
We don't have this in front
of us, though, do we, the amendment?
MR. SPEAKER:
The amendment?
MS. MICHAEL:
We don't have it in front of
us.
MR. SPEAKER:
The revised motion?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Basically, it's either the
parliamentary calendar or the average number of days, as opposed to just the
average number of days.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Then looking at what
we would be voting for, the Commission accepts Recommendation 21, but
Recommendations 21 is what you just read out, not what we have in front of us.
MR. SPEAKER:
No, everything remains the
same except for item (d). Item (d) would be changed to read, if you're looking
at item (d), item (d) would be the number of sitting days in the parliamentary
calendar or the average number of sitting days the House is in session,
calculated over the previous eight-year period. Everything else remains the
same.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. The only point I'm
making then, Mr. Speaker, is that it's not what's written here that is the 21
that we are voting on; it's what you have read into the minutes. We don't have
that wording in the 21 that we have here. I just want to make that clear where
we are going.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, and we apologize about
that. Based on the discussion we had at the last meeting –
MS. MICHAEL:
No, I realize where it has
come from, but we just don't have that wording in front of us.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
You do; we don't.
MR. SPEAKER:
Did you want a photocopy of
this prior to –
MS. MICHAEL:
No, as long as we all know
what we mean when we are voting on Recommendation 21 because it's now what –
MR. SPEAKER:
Absolutely, so read into the
record the only change would be item (d) and it's (d)(1). So that would read the
number of sitting days in a parliamentary calendar or the average number of
sitting days the House is in session, calculated over the previous eight-year
period. Everything else in the recommendation remains the same.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Any
questions or comments on the recommendation?
Do I
have a mover and/or a seconder?
Moved
by Mr. Davis; seconded by Mr. Hutchings.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Recommendation 24 – Commuting Distance.
The
2016 MCRC made the following recommendation: “There will be no mileage allowance
for any Member travelling within the 60 km zone (commuting distance). This
restriction does not apply to the Intra/Extra Constituency Allowance.”
Members
who live within the commuting distance of the capital region, Confederation
Building Complex, may not claim mileage and those who reside outside the
commuting distance may claim mileage. The Committee felt that there is little
fairness between Members who are close to the commuting distance and noted that
people in the province travel far greater distances to and from their workplace,
or work and receive no benefit for such travel.
“The
Committee recommended that Members be prohibited from claiming mileage when
travelling within the 60 km zone for House in Session and House not in Session
travel only, which they felt would place all Members on a same footing.
“The
commuting distance restriction does not apply to any travel under the I/E
constituency allowance. Therefore, travel within the 60 km zone is allowable for
all Members under that category.”
Are
there any questions or comments?
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm trying to make sure I
understand this. Explain to me the I&E – so it doesn't apply to House in
session. Right now if for going back and forth, but it applies for I&E –
somebody dumb that down for me.
Ms.
Burke.
MS. BURKE:
If I can.
Chapter
five of the members' administration guide refers to types of travel. Travel and
living expenses fall into one of three categories, based on the purpose of the
travel: one, House in session; two, House not in session; and three, intra and
extra constituency.
For
House in session, then the Member is reimbursed the cost of travel and living
for one return trip per week. This would include, then, the 60-kilometre zone.
So no reimbursement is to be provided to an MHA who is travelling within the
60-km zone for House in session.
House
not in session travel, a Member may claim the cost of travel and living for 20
return trips per year between the permanent residence and the capital region,
and that would encapsulate the 60-kilometre zone in Recommendation 24.
Intra
and extra constituency is travel within the constituency between the capital
region and another constituency outside the capital region. My understanding of
intra and extra constituency is between constituencies and within the
constituency, but the House in session, House not in session, deals with the
60-kilometre restriction.
MR. A. PARSONS:
So just to make sure I
understand. When I drive back here from Port aux Basques, 894 kilometres, when I
hit the 834 kilometres, it's cut off?
MS. BURKE:
That's right.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Browne.
MR. BROWNE:
Just so I'm clear, Mr.
Speaker, that includes House in session and House not in session? That is the
intent of the recommendation, is it?
MS. BURKE:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other questions or any
other comments?
Mr.
Browne.
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, if I could. So
for Members who fly to the capital region from their districts and avail of
rental cars, would the rental car still be covered within the 60-kilometre zone?
MS. BURKE:
I can only speak to the recommendation that says: “There will be no mileage
allowance for any Member travelling within the 60 kilometre zone (commuting
distance).”
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
This one sort of, in some
ways, falls in conjunction with the further one where there's a capital city or
Corner Brook allowance for Members to get a sum of money for driving within the
city. Is that how that works?
MR. SPEAKER:
No, I think that's under I&E
only.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I&E only is it? Okay.
CLERK:
Right now, anybody within 60
kilometres (inaudible) claim any mileage while the House is in session or the
House is not in session.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other comments? Any
other questions?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Sir.
Just
trying to make sure that we have a full understanding here; the new rules for
Members within the capital region will be – maybe Ms. Burke could explain the
difference for Members whose districts fall within the capital region and what
the rules would be for them, versus those outside the capital region.
MR. SPEAKER:
I can make a stab at it. Ms.
Burke can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of reading the report,
the $200 allowance is for I&E only. Members within the capital region, within 60
kilometres, don't claim any mileage to and from work. Members beyond 60
kilometres could claim up to the point they reach the 60 kilometre mark for
mileage. Am I correct in saying that?
MS. BURKE:
That's correct.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay. I understand.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Any
other questions? Any other comments?
Mr.
Browne.
MR. BROWNE:
Yeah, for those of us who
use travel logs, there's a means of accountability for our intra- and
extra-constituency travel. We have to take a log of that. I guess what's being
proposed is that a $200 allowance would be given.
I'm
just wondering is there any means of accountability ensured there because,
conceivably, the Member could travel nowhere, incur no costs and still receive
the benefit. Whereas, if you're claiming based on the travel claims, as I
understand it – and I could be totally wrong and correct me if I am.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yeah, if I could, Mr.
Browne, for a second. The $200 amount you're talking about is another
recommendation. That's I&E only; it's not mileage to and from. I think you're
intermeshing the two recommendations.
You can
still ask your question if you wish. I can ask Ms. Burke to elaborate, but I
think you're mixing up the recommendations.
MR. BROWNE:
I guess, Mr. Speaker – and
I'm new, so please feel free to interject. My question perhaps then should be
has there ever been an analysis done of the usage of intra- and
extra-constituency travel for rural districts versus urban? Has that analysis
been done? I guess my question is – I know you yourself don't claim it. I'm
wondering has that analysis been done that urban Members actually use the I&E
and would there be any measure of accountability there?
MR. SPEAKER:
I think most urban Members,
both within the St. John's metro region and Corner Brook don't claim I&E
mileage. I think that was the purpose for the recommendation on the $200; but,
again, we're talking about a different recommendation now.
The
current recommendation that we're on, Recommendation 24, is about the 60 km
zone. We will be getting to the $200 recommendation next. I'm happy to talk
about both recommendations now if you wish, but they are two different
recommendations.
Any
other comments or questions?
Do we
have a mover and/or a seconder for Recommendation 24? Ms. Michael moves.
Do we
have a seconder? Mr. Davis seconds.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Recommendation 27, which is the recommendation I think we were just discussing.
“MHAs in the Capital Region and in the Corner Brook district only, have the
option at the beginning of each fiscal year to choose between: a. Claiming
mileage; or b. A monthly automobile allowance of $200, which will be a taxable
benefit to the Member.
“The
remainder of the current I&E Allowance (until it is changed as recommended
herein) to be allotted for the other uses permitted by the Allowance.
“Currently, all Members are reimbursed a per kilometer rate for actual distance
travelled by automobile under the Intra/Extra Constituency Allowance, requiring
detailed mileage records.
“For
urban districts (Capital Region and Corner Brook) where travel is often a short
distance, keeping the required detailed mileage records has been described in
the report as “unnecessarily onerous.”
“Accepting recommendation 27 would allow Members in these districts the choice
of claiming actual mileage (and keeping detailed mileage records), or a monthly
allowance of $200 .…”
Are
there any comments or questions on this, and I invite Mr. Browne, too?
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
return to the point I made earlier. I know that when rural Members travel, they
have to log in their book where they're going. I'm just wondering what
accountability measures will be put in place for the $200.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Ms.
Burke.
MS. BURKE:
Thank you.
It's
important to note that the $200 monthly allowance is a taxable benefit. So
Members aren't actually getting $200 in their pocket per month, it will be
something less than that. The Committee felt the benefit that was provided would
be a reasonable amount of money, given what we understood to be the travel
within the capital region for the Members.
In
terms of accountability, we did not feel that a relatively small amount would
require any detailed amount of accountability, as we felt that it was a small
amount in terms of an allowance after tax and the most Members who were in the
capital region or the Corner Brook region were not keeping monthly automobile
allowance records because it was so tedious to do so. We felt that it was
important for Members to be reimbursed for their expenses in relation to travel
and that's why we came up with that number.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other questions or any
other comments?
CLERK:
I have a question.
MR. SPEAKER:
Madam Clerk.
CLERK:
I can't find the section
right now, but there are certain positions in the House of Assembly that are
entitled to the car allowance similar to that which ministers may elect to
receive. With those allowances, if they choose to receive that lump sum
allowance, they cannot claim mileage.
MS. BURKE:
Right.
CLERK:
So in this case the $200
allowance, that would not be available to anybody who's already in receipt of a
car allowance?
MS. BURKE:
Right, so they can elect.
CLERK:
Okay.
MS. BURKE:
They have the option,
beginning each fiscal year, to choose between claiming a mileage or claiming a
monthly automobile.
CLERK:
Yeah, but for those who get
the $8,000 car allowance, Mr. Speaker –
MS. BURKE:
No, no, no, it doesn't
apply. That's the executive.
CLERK:
No, no, but the Speaker gets
the car allowance, the Leader of the Official Opposition gets the car allowance
and if the Leader of the Third Party sat in the House, he or she would get the
car allowance.
MR. SPEAKER:
If I may, Madam Clerk, for
clarification I think what you're driving at is –
CLERK:
Can you overlap those two.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yeah. Can we have an
understanding that anybody in receipt of a ministerial allowance is not also
eligible to collect the $200 car allowance?
MS. BURKE:
Anybody who's in receipt of
any automobile allowance would not be eligible to collect the monthly automobile
allowance.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. So that clarifies the
point quite adequately I think.
CLERK:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, any other questions or
comments
Do we
have a mover and/or a seconder for the motion?
Moved
by Mr. Hutchings; seconded by Ms. Michael.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Recommendations 12 through 15: “12. All advertising by MHAs is to be restricted
to the size of a business card;
“13.
The HOA staff shall prepare a template to be approved by the Management
Commission which will be used by the Members for all advertising to provide
consistency in approach and content of advertising for all MHAs;
“14.
Paragraph 24(i) will require an amendment to comply with the advertising
recommendations;
“15. A
Member shall be permitted recovery of an expense for advertising (that meets the
amended Rules and the revised Policy) in an organization's brochure/pamphlet,
despite any reference to “donation” or “gift” by the organization.”
Currently, Members are permitted “to use the office operations, supplies and
communications allowance for advertising expenses. The
Advertising Policy for Members of the
House of Assembly provides further direction with respect to the purpose,
type and content of advertising by MHAs … the MCRC is recommending that changes
should be made to the Advertising Policy to provide consistency in content and
approach of advertising by Members. The changes will include restricting all
advertising to the size of a business card. A detailed template for advertising,
to be approved by the Management Commission, will be provided for use by all
Members.”
Do we
have any questions or comments?
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Just an observation, Mr.
Speaker.
I don't
know if Ms. Burke can elaborate a little bit further, but on number 12, “All
adverting by MHAs is to be restricted to the size of a business card.”
I'm
just wondering if any analysis was done on that. I'm thinking about a
circumstance where you know districts are all different and have local
publications and some not so much, and the MHAs use a variety of means to
advertise that they exist. Currently, anyone who advertises has their name and
their district name and their contact information is required on all
advertising. I can't think of a specific circumstance but I just to make sure
that we're not being too restrictive.
Is
there a circumstance where restricting it to the size of a business card would
prevent Members from advertising or restrict them or minimize their ability to
advertise? I don't know if Ms. Burke considered that or not. I'm just curious if
there was a further look at different districts around the province in that
regard.
MS. BURKE:
The 2016 MCRC considered that given the technology that is available today, the
telephone that is available to constituents to call the House of Assembly or to
call the Confederation Building to determine who their Members are and for
contact information for its Members, the Committee decided that there was no
need to enhance the advertising by MHAs greater than that of a business card.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other questions or
comments?
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Directed to Ms. Burke – I
can't remember. It's not here, so it must be somewhere else where it talks about
we may still do something that may be a particular, like a national holiday –
there's another place that mentions major national days and we can recognize
those.
It
would seem to me that would be a different classification because you would not
be able to do that in a business size card, whereas the regular advertising that
some of us put in the paper or put in different places, the business card can
work; but if were actually recognizing one of the major days like in a local
journal or something, recognizing maybe November 11, for example, the business
card size wouldn't fit then.
Did you
have that consideration? I can't remember where it is that –
MS. BURKE:
It was in number 11, “Recovery of expenses incurred for advertising of messages
of welcome, greetings and congratulations is prohibited, except for the
recognition of national, provincial, constituency level weeks, days and events.
Members may still include messages of welcome, greetings and congratulations in
MHA newsletters ….”
So I
would see that number 12 would be modified by number 11, such that advertising
in relation to the recognition of national, provincial, constituency level
weeks, days and events; but again, I'm not sure that greater than a business
card would be necessary. The 2016 MCRC still regards that a business card would
be an appropriate size.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right, for that, it would
be. That's what I'm pointing out, yes.
MS. BURKE:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other comments or
questions?
Do we
have a mover and/or a seconder for motion one?
There
are several motions. Motion one would be that the Commission accepts
Recommendation 12, “All advertising by MHAs is to be restricted to the
size of a business card.”
Mr.
Parsons; seconded by Ms. Michael.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion
two is that the Commission adopts Recommendation 13 and directs the House of
Assembly officials to develop a template which will be used by all Members for
advertising. The template must be approved by the Management Commission.
Do we
have a mover?
Mr.
Parsons.
Seconder?
Ms.
Michael.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion
three, that the Commission adopts Recommendation 14 to amend paragraph 24(i) of
the Members' Resources and Allowance
Rules to comply with the advertising recommendations.
Do we
have a mover and/or seconder?
Moved
by Ms. Michael; seconded by Mr. Parsons.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion
four that the Commission adopts Recommendation 15 to permit recovery of
advertising expenses in an organization's brochure/pamphlet, despite any
reference to a donation or gift by the organization.
Do we
have a mover and/or seconder?
Mr.
Parsons; Mr. Browne.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Recommendation 26 – Travel to Other Districts. “Section 30 of the Rules are to
be amended to add the following: A member may claim reimbursement for
travel and associated accommodation and meal costs related to travel … to
another district in relation to matters affecting his or her district.”
“… the MCRC found that under the current provisions there
was no accommodation to allow for the following: Travel between districts inside
the Capital Region, Travel between a district outside the Capital Region and a
district inside the Capital Region.
“The MCRC noted that recommendation 73(1)(d) of the Green
Report clearly intended that the I/E constituency allowance provide for travel
to another district in relation to constituency matters, but that the provision
did not appear to be included in the
Members' Resources and Allowances Rules (the Rules).”
Any
questions or comments?
The
recommended motion is that the Commission accepts Recommendation 26: “Section 30
of the Rules be amended to add the following: A member may claim reimbursement
for travel and associated accommodation and meal costs related to travel … to
another district in relation to matters affecting his or her district.”
Do we
have a mover and/or seconder?
Moved
by Mr. Parsons; seconded by Mr. Browne.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
Recommendations 29 and 30 – Constituency Allowance: “29. The recovery of meal
expenses from restaurants, pubs, delicatessens and the like under the
Constituency Allowance shall be prohibited. Members shall not be permitted to
claim this expense as part of their meal per diem.
“30. If
incurring an expense as an adjunct to a community event in the district, the
Member or his/her Constituency Assistant is required to be present at the event,
but is not required to host the event.”
Any
questions or comments on either of those?
Motion
one is that the Commission accepts Recommendation 29, that the recovery of meal
expenses from restaurants, pubs, delicatessens and the like under the
constituency allowance shall be prohibited. Members shall not be permitted to
claim this expense as part of their meal per diem.
Do we
have a mover and/or seconder?
Moved
by Mr. Parsons; seconded by Ms. Michael.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
Motion
number two is: “The Commission adopts recommendation 30 that if incurring an
expense as an adjunct to a community event in the district, the Member or
his/her Constituency Assistant is required to be present at the event, but is
not required to host the event.”
Do we
have a mover and/or seconder?
Moved
by Ms. Michael; seconded by Mr. Parsons.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
Recommendations 7 through 9 – Committee Meeting Per Diems: “7. There shall be no
meeting per diems for the chair and/or committee members for meetings held when
the House is not in session;
“8. The
chair and committee members are expected to take advantage of electronic media
to participate in Committee work where practical;
“9. The
chair and committee members shall be reimbursed for expenses associated with
travel and accommodations when meetings are required to be held when the House
is not in session.”
Do we
have any comments or questions?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
It states meetings per diem.
Is that supposed to be meals per diem or is it meetings per diem?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Clerk.
CLERK:
When members of the Public
Accounts Committee, which often meets when the House is not sitting, or the
Standing Orders Committee, those that are not receiving a salary from an office
or a ministerial salary are entitled to claim per diem to attend that meeting,
in addition to their travel and accommodation and meal expenses. So essentially,
adopting this, they wouldn't be eligible for the meeting per diem, the $145
anymore.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I have a question of
clarification.
I'm
assuming under number 9 that expenses associated with travel and accommodations
does include the meals for the person who has had to travel to come out?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, just making that
clear.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, under accommodations,
that would include meals.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other questions or
comments?
Okay,
motion one is that the Commission adopts Recommendation 7 that there shall be no
meeting per diem for the Chair and/or Committee members for meetings held when
the House is not in session.
Do we
have a mover and/or seconder?
Moved
by Mr. Hutchings; seconded by Ms Michael.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion
two, the Commission adopts Recommendation 8 that the Chair and the Committee
members are expected to take advantage of electronic media to participate in
Committee work, where practical.
Do we
have a mover and/or seconder?
Moved
by Mr. Browne; seconded by Mr. Parsons.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion
three, the Commission adopts recommendation 9 that the Chair and Committee
members should be reimbursed for expenses associated with travel and
accommodations when meetings are required to be held when the House is not in
session.
Do we
have a mover and/or seconder?
Moved
by Mr. Hutchings; seconded by Ms. Michael.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
This
concludes the meeting.
Do we
have any other comments or questions before we conclude?
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
received some information that when the lights dimmed out earlier, there may
have been a power outage and a loss of the broadcast. So we might want to check
that.
MR. SPEAKER:
We have. There was about a 4
or 5 second loss and then it came back.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
CLERK:
I asked the Broadcast Centre
will the portion of the broadcast that was dropped be present in the archive –
because after the meeting, the archive is available. And Don Brewer in the
Broadcast said he won't know for sure until the meeting ends. He says the
cameras lost power for a few seconds, so there will be some video missing, but
he doesn't think the audio is affected. He'll need to check the master recording
to know the full effect. Because when the lights came back up, we were showing
here. I know that I lost the network connection here, so I don't know –
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other comments or
questions?
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Just because it's been a
couple days of this, do we have more recommendations left?
MR. SPEAKER:
We do, yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay, I wanted to make sure.
MR. SPEAKER:
We will set another meeting.
I know that we're getting close to the conclusion of this session. My guess is
it will probably be January before we have the next meeting.
Are all
Members in favour of setting a time in January?
Okay.
So we will set a time; we will communicate with Members to try to get a
consensus on a date in January.
We need
budget meetings for the House of Assembly as well. They're okay for January as
well.
CLERK:
Early January – we have to
have our submission in by the 20th of January.
MR. SPEAKER:
So it will be early January.
Do we
have a motion to adjourn?
Mr.
Parsons; seconded by Mr. Hutchings.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Opposed?
Carried.
Thank
you for attending.